Why Motivation and Learning Climate Still Matter in the New AI World

What makes a plant grow? There are a few ostensibly easy answers; sunlight, water, and nutrients. Enter the gardener. This person cannot grow the plant for itself but instead only provides the conditions–the environment–for a plant to flourish. This is complicated by the varying preferences of plants, with some thriving in full sun and others in shade. The skill of any gardener lies in their understanding the needs of the plants they care for. Yet, ultimately, it is the plant itself that grows and flourishes.  

Learning is comparable. The instructor cannot learn for the student. While the instructor can provide a more or less student-centered learning environment, ultimately the learner must take responsibility for engaging with the many frictions, vexations, and exertions required for genuine learning and growth (Bjork, 1994). What makes a good instructor or instructional session then? How to cultivate an effective learning environment?

Considering the essential psychological needs of human learners is a great way to approach these questions. Much like the expert gardener who can account for the biological needs of a wide array of plants, the expert instructor fosters a learning environment that is more conducive to each learner’s basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The mechanics and reasoning behind this approach are detailed in an extensively researched and successful psychological theory called Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017). 

Autonomy can be defined, from the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) standpoint, as feelings of choice within a structure where students “feel that actions emanate from themselves” (Ryan and Deci, 2000a). Autonomy is not a feeling of ‘free for all,’ where a person can do whatever it is they want. Rather, SDT posits that feelings of genuine autonomy involves choice within a structure or limitations of some kind. One can easily imagine how demotivating it is for a mid-career professional to be told to pick their own project to advance the company’s core mission as opposed to being given a list of options.

Competence is defined as the feeling that one has the necessary skills and competencies to succeed in the relevant endeavor. This is common sense as well. The marathon runner at the start line who believes that they performed the necessary preparations for the race, eating well, getting rest, and executing their training regiment will likely do better than the individual runner who does not feel as prepared for the race. It is important to note that we are not making objective observations here but instead focusing on the internal states of these individuals. How people perceive themselves can make a significant difference in how they perform in a marathon or in learning a new skill. This is why it is so common for learning activities in professional development settings to be scaffolded. Not to overwhelm the individual learner with new information and expectations but instead to build up knowledge, skills, and abilities over a period of time.

Lastly, relatedness is defined as a sense of belongingness and connection to others. Imagine being skilled in a certain work procedure but not being given the opportunity to tackle more advanced topics in a training during a rare internal professional development opportunity? Imagine what would be capable with that same individual who is given the opportunity to work in their ‘zone of proximal development’ (Vygotsky, 19xx) where the tasks they are being directed to perform are neither trivially easy not out of reach but forcest the learner to stretch just a little bit to learn something new. The historical challenge for instructors is that they have many different plants with many different needs–how to provide meaningful, engaging instruction that motivates a wide-range of individuals with a wide-range of knowledge, skills, and abilities all in a single instructional session or series? 

Learning environments that support individuals’ perceptions of autonomy, competence, and relatedness have been reported in rigorous studies to encourage positive effects on student engagement (Vansteenkiste, 2004) and achievement (Boggiano, 1993). Moreover, satisfaction of the basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness are related to autonomous motivation (Slemp et al., 2020) and well-being (Yu et al., 2017) “whereas basic psychological need frustration reduce students’ well-being (Longo et al., 2016) and study engagement (Hughes et al., 2023).” (Jeno et al., 2024). Lastly, supporting such needs have been shown across different countries (Finland, India, and the United States) could also yield more meaningful work experiences (Martela & Riekki, 2018). 

This well-established theory posits that the motivation to learn does not come from the instructor, although they can influence the learning environment, but instead is increased or decreased as a result of an individual learner’s self-perceptions of autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan and Deci, 2000a). Furthermore, student motivation is not a simple binary but instead a scale, with amotivation and strictly extrinsic motivation (strictly coming from outside the individual) on one end to intrinsic motivation (originating strictly from inside the individual) on the other (Ryan and Deci, 2000a). Importantly, there is also a middle ground of human motivation which resides between these two extremes.

Figure 1. Different forms of motivation. IMPACT Annual Report 2015, Part 1 & 2, p. 6 - http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/impactreps/6/

This is critically important as extrinsic motivation is a poor motivator. Doing something because someone else tells you to do it yields poor results for a variety of reasons. One easily can imagine the hapless manager applying psychological pressure on their employees in an attempt to motivate them, all the while undermining their effort through such coercive tactics. Intrinsic motivation on the other hand, while ideal, is not practical for many workplaces. While some colleagues may be intrinsically motivated to learn a new programming language or the newest internal reporting requirements, many are not for the same reason some people prefer to run long distances and others to lift weights. Simply put, some people have strong, intrinsic preferences that no one else can influence.

SDT posits that the satisfaction of feelings of autonomy, competence, and relatedness yield more self-determined, engaged, and positive learning experiences while the frustration of these basic needs are associated with the opposite (Ryan and Deci, 2019). Note Figure 1. Introjection is engaging in behavior to avoid feelings of shame or guilt. Imagine staying late to complete a project simply because your boss is staying late. Identification is when one identifies with the value of a behavior. This is a still more useful, more self-determined form of motivation. One might jog not because they intrinsically enjoy it, but they do value staying in shape. Integrated regulation is when an individual is motivated to do something as it is aligned with their values–like mentoring a colleague at your work place not because one believes in professional development for others but also because one considers oneself a mentor or leader who can make a difference in other’s careers (Ryan and Deci, 2000b).

Self-Determination Theory posits, and decades of research backs this up, that if learners’ basic psychological needs are being met, they are likely experiencing more self-determined motivation. While aiming for intrinsic motivation is as foolish as attempting to explain why someone prefers cheesecake to brownies, it is possible that does not preclude professional development trainings to create a learning environment that is more conducive to motivation that is closer to intrinsic forms of motivation than extrinsic forms of motivation.

Let us describe this further with an example. Imagine Pat who is taking an asynchronous online training to upskill so that she can more successfully complete a project for a client. Imagine one scenario where Pat talks with an AI that only provides factual information and can be queried relentlessly for accurate, timely information. There are benefits to this. Pat does not have to worry about feeling inadequate by asking a seemingly simple question in front of people she respects. Pat can receive information late at night when she prefers to work. But this hypothetical AI is not capable of breaking down more complex concepts into smaller ones, does not take into account Pat’s preferences for engaging with the AI, and does not provide opportunities for Pat to feel connected to others or to see how this content relates to her current project. After all, she is taking on this training not out of her own intrinsic motivation but to achieve a very specific goal. How frustrating to take a training for a specific purpose but for it not to be applicable to what you really want to know?Is there anything more frustrating than attending a training session only to find it doesn't apply to your needs or context?

Now imagine an AI system that is focused instead on the basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Decades of SDT research posits that Pat’s upskilling efforts would be much more effective, shifting the “perceived locus of causality” in psychological speak from a more extrinsic form of motivation (viz., I need this training to effectively complete this project) to a more self-determined form of motivation. Imagine Pat can ask the AI to slow down or speed up so that she doesn’t waste her time learning new things, and can take time engaging with more advanced content. Also consider an AI system that could scaffold the content Pat is asked to learn dynamically such that more advanced content is encountered right after Pat makes a conceptual leap and grasps a concept for the first time. This would likely support Pat positively building her self-perceptions of competence constructively. Lastly, let us imagine an AI that can pivot such that the content she is learning is directly and immediately applicable to the project she is interested in? This, again, would yield more self-determined forms of motivation, which means Pat feels more inclined to learn than by someone simply telling her to learn.

While current AI training and upskilling solutions continue to evolve and change–human nature does not. Fundamentally, we have basic psychological needs just as plants have basic needs for nutrients, water, and sunlight. Instructors can create more or less autonomy-supporting learning environments, more or less self-determined forms of motivation for learners. For similar reasons AI can motivate or demotivate an individual learner. In one sense–how you create a learning environment whether in a physical classroom or in a one-on-one training with an AI agent matters more than what you do. A gardener can’t physically make a plant grow. An instructor can’t make an individual learn. But we can create learning environments that are more or less conducive to the kinds of motivation and growth we seek. Let us not forget our basic psychological needs as we continue to explore the intersections of AI and learning.

Works Cited

Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185-205). MIT Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4561.003.0011

Boggiano, A. K., Flink, C., Shields, A., Seelbach, A., & Barrett, M. (1993). Use of techniques promoting students' self-determination: Effects on students' analytic problem-solving skills. Motivation and Emotion, 17(4), 319-336. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992323

IMPACT Management Team and IMPACT Assessment Team. (2015). Annual IMPACT report 2015: A report by the IMPACT Data Collection and Analysis Team, Parts 1 and 2. IMPACT Reports, Paper 6. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/impactreps/6

Jeno, L., Levesque-Bristol, C., Nylehn, J., Pavlovic, Z., Roness, D., & Weinstein, N. (2024). A longitudinal study investigating the role of basic psychological needs and autonomous motivation in explaining students' achievement and dropout from teacher education. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/dsu85

Martela, F., & Riekki, T. J. J. (2018). Autonomy, competence, relatedness, and beneficence: A multicultural comparison of the four pathways to meaningful work. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1157. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01157

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. The Guilford Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2019). Brick by brick: The origins, development, and future of self-determination theory. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Advances in motivation science (Vol. 6, pp. 111-156). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2019.01.001

Slemp, G. R., Field, J. G., & Cho, A. S. H. (2020). A meta-analysis of autonomous and controlled forms of teacher motivation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 121, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103459

Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 246-260. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.246

Yu, S., Levesque-Bristol, C., & Maeda, Y. (2017). General need for autonomy and subjective well-being: A meta-analysis of studies in the US and East Asia. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9898-2